Good news! Earth not flat

Armagh Geddon

Thank you for telling the truth on these vitally important issues.

Lee Jakeman

Charles Hapgood, an American scientist, proposed a theory called "Earth's shifting crust" to explain the end of the ice age. He suggested that the entire crust of the Earth was capable of "shifting" over the Earth's molten core, much like the skin of an orange "shifting" over the fruit inside. It was one of the most elegant theories ever proposed and had the support of Einstein. The scientific establishment's reaction? Scorn and ridicule. Great scientists are always individuals who dare to buck trends. The scientific establishment has always been an ultra-conservative group who latch onto, and then propagate, a particular viewpoint to the detriment of all other viewpoints, whether it be evolution theory or global warming. They are politicians, really, not scientists at all.

Acorn

Have you noticed the subtle change of refrain from "global warming" to "climate change" over the last year. The anti-globalisation, anti-capitalism forum that has hijacked the new religion, have started to realise that the scientific Ducks are not exactly all in a row anymore. There are a lot of research budgets up for renewal at the moment. Paymasters are starting to wonder if they have not bought into the climate version of Enron. When Bush lets NASA release the data - nearer the Presidential election - there will be a lot of sandal wearing Phd green warriors, looking for work.

cyllan

I have never really believed in conspiracy theories till lately, but i am getting more scared by the day, it looks like we are constantly brainwashed by politicians and the media about so many things, global warming ,israel "brutality", "islamic pacifissim", radical scientism.... the stupidity that more goverment spending= better services( NHS anyone????)..... and now this.... global warming... to be honest , the issue for me has always been polution+contamination+sustainable resorurces in nature,we just using up everything like there is no tomorrow.... what any of this has to do with green taxing us more is a mistery.... george orwell never knew how right he was when he wrote the book..... the problem is i dont know what can we do apart from complaining in a blog, all parties are under the radical left wing mantra in all issues really, objectivity has gone out of the window

eliXelx

A prophet can bring good or bad news, and it can happen or not happen. That makes four possibilities, only two of which make him a true prohet. Gore has set himself up as a prophet. What do we do with him if what he has told us happens? And what if it doesn't?

Brian

I suppose I'm the only defender of AGW here. I really think you're misunderstanding the fundamental issues at stake (for the record, global warming does mean extreme weather rather 'warming' as such-thus 'climate change') The science can be discussed briefly. It has been proven beyond doubt on small scales that greenhouse gases contribute to climate change and affect natural equilibrium. The relatively small % of Co2 in our atmosphere is irrelevant to the role it plays in this system. I respect Melanie for writing this and won't go through the science in detail. However, considering that we know oil is a finite resource, as is coal, would we not be better erring on the side of caution? using our existing resources to develop solar/wind power etc. Reducing waste generally, placing value on rainforests/habitats and other things not measured by GDP?

Ian C

I recommend that readers see Lord Leach of Fairford's letter to The Times of 20 Dec - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article3074943.ece - It is the single most sesnsible summary of where we are in this debate. And today you will see academic flat-earthers claiming black is white in response to it. How did we ever get to a position when such false gods are being proclaimed by the so called scientific community? None have bothered to address the fact that the world has not warmed in a decade. They simply scream "we're all doomed - give me some more money to do some research". What are they on?

The Radical

“Reason, truth and real science”? On the subject of climate change, Melanie, you are so far from all three it is almost comical. Have you ever, in your columns or blogs, quoted a researcher, scientist or writer on global warming who is not pushing a free-market or oil-industry agenda? Have you? Take Professor David Deming (not ‘Denning’), for example. He is hardly a ‘neutral’ scientist, dispassionately searching for the ‘truth’. He is, you omit to mention, an ‘adjunct scholar’ at two conservative, free-market thinktanks, the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs and the National Center for Policy Analysis – the latter funded by, among others, Exxon Mobil. He also happens to be a geologist by training and his thirty research papers (and one published textbook) are all on hydrogeology – and none are on climatology. You may also be interested in his rather disturbing and reactionary views on female intelligence (see his Wikipedia entry, under Deming, not Denning). radicalopinions.blogspot.com

Harry Tee

Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!

Dave

Brian, to err on the side of caution is to err on which side? If we spend billions/trillions of dollars to reduce the increase (note, not reduce CO2) of CO2 into the atmosphere, who will be affacted by this diversion of resources? Certainly the poor and the sick will be affected to some significant extent. If we do nothing about CO2, then these will also be affected. What will be the realistic gain if we reduce the rate of CO2 going into the atmosphere? Personally I'd like to get off oil for other reasons--other environmental concerns and national security concerns. Putting all this money into renewable clean energy can be done without trashing the economy, which straight CO2 caps would do.

Ian Turner

Well done Melanie! You expose another giant scam at the expense of ordinary working people and by a Labour Government at that!

Robert Wood

Brian, in the same breath as you say we must stop burning fossil fuels as we will destroy the planet, you say we will run out of fossil fuels. Is that before or after? Mind you, that breath was CO2. Do you feel guilty?

Anan

Algorism is beginning to end. I predict an exponential decline in the power of the greens over the next few years. Woot!

Reid of America

Melanie says "A lot of reputations are now going to disappear along with it" I doubt that any reputations will be affected. Look at what has happened to those who back in the 1960's and 1970's predicted famine, wars fought for food, resource depletion, mass poverty, mass human death, global cooling, etc. Not only have they not been held accountable for being completely wrong many are treated as though they were brilliant scientific pioneers. Once the scientific foundation collapses around CO2-AGW the neo-pagan religious core will live on.

Wonderkid

It is well known that climate forecasting is still a black art, even if we're getting better - so neither side should try to claim victory. What is critical is that we a) Try to use cleaner energy sources to cut down on pollution and endocrine disruptors b) Consider that we may somehow take the Earth to a tipping point where devastating 'climate change' (hot, cold, windy whatever) is impossible to reverse and/or maintain a stable economy within. So, let's not be so greedy, use less packaging, walk or bike rather than drive, and install NanoSolar panels on our warehouses to get the ball rolling. (I just read about NanoSolar and they offer hope away from oil.)

Alan Stoddart

So Deming is a geologist and not a professor of global warming, clearly he is completely unqualified to comment on the matter. what are the radicals' credentials? Mark Lynas one denounced a ‘Flat Earther’ because he was by trade an economist…’How could any wild-eyed rants from an economist be relevant or based on informed judgements.’ Hmm…wasn’t the great Stern an economist? It is interesting that the Left defends it’s argument by always trying to discredit the other side by attacking their grammar or spellings…its always fun to add an abhorrent apostrophe into a comment to get a reaction.

Peter Turner

All that Melanie writes may well be true and we are entering a cooling phase but how long will it be before Al Gore and his believers claim the credit? Will our politicians and leadership elite be fooled once more? Very likely.

ASG

Brian appears to be in a complete muddle, claiming to be an Anthropogenic Global Warming advocate while at the same time claiming that global warming is not really meant to mean warming as such but rather to be interpreted as that which causes extreme weather conditions. This all sounds very familiar mirroring the sidestep that the IPCC embarked on when failing to prove scientifically the link between the slight rise in average global warming (which has now stopped and is showing all the signs of dropping) and anthropogenic CO2 emissions by changing the nomenclature from “Global Warming” to the all encompassing “Climate Change”. While Brian is correct to be concerned about waste and dwindling economically available natural resources, there is no need to panic as we have ample time available to develop and use other forms of cleaner energy and to wean us off oil that will prove strategically beneficial to world security and stability.

gareth

It is quite remarkable how much the chattering class bases its world-view on the opinions of zealots who lie cheat and intimidate everyone who stands in their way. The internet is now the last refuge for anyone trying to find out the truth about the world we live in. The "old fashioned" media has been completeley taken over by the lies of political correctness.

teqjack

As demonstrated by several commenters previously, the dispute is far from over. My own position, which I have held for several years, is that warming may well have been happening, but there has been no actual evidence (as opposed to prejudice) that mankind is at fault. Possible, to some extent, but not only uncertain as much as improbable. Especially since the loudest adherents of the hypothesis also state that the Medieval Warm and the Little Ice Age never happened - or, as claimed at one point, were strictly local phenomena owing to some unrecorded shift of the Gulf Stream, which was quickly debunked by written records from China as well as "proxy" readings from South America and Africa. In the past week, for example, we had a published report on the massive melting of Antarctic ice - followed two days later by published reports that Antarctic ice was re-freezing at a rate not seen since the Thirties. It is possible both are correct - it has been shown before that "alarming" melts on one side of the Antarctic continent were matched by "startling" buildup of ice on the opposite side. All in all, I am still waiting to hear how SUVs and attendant fuels are making their way to the Jovian moons and other bodies in the local sun's system to cause the warming there.

Ryan G

All of us can expect the global warming rhetoric to get louder and more shrill as the anti-capitalist, anti-American extremists who have pushed it for the past 10 or so years sense real trouble. They can't shut people down by likening them to neo-Nazis who dispute the Holocaust anymore.

Giles

I love you conspiracy theorists. It is crystal clear that no amount of evidence ever shows to them that either (a) Elvis died in 1977 (b) the Americans landed on the Moon or (c) Global Warming is a likely hypothesis with enormous potential consequences. No, it is FAR easier to believe that, somehow, the scientific community is capable of gigantic self-delusion caused by some sinister political motivation. Yes, that's right - whereas a Spectator columnist is objective, no doubt purely motivated by true scientific insights into this enormous, difficult issue. People either believe things because they are capable of keeping an open mind in the face of scientific hypothesis and evidence, or because they have a desire to believe a particular thing, and exercise that well-known Human ingenuity in directing their mind only to the evidence that suits. It is clear that Melanie here would be incapable of being convinced by the global warming case, because her political instincts make is necessary to believe the opposition - instincts backing untrammeled capitalism at every turn. A few anecdotes about cold winters do not prove anything about global warming. Anyone with anything resembling a scientific education would be embarrassed to imply as much. But I don't expect such a self-regarding community to subject its beliefs to much scrutiny, unlike the global warming adherents, who clear endless rigorous pier-reviews as hurdles.

David

It is a great pity the argument on climate warming is so polarised and that you contribute so vigorously to that processg. Ensuring that man limits the impact of human activity and pollution on the earth is just good housekeeping. Using evidence of one year or just a few years to sustain your argument is absolute silly folly and for an intelligent observer, which you are, disingenuous. Climate change is only measurable across much longer periods. While change is going on (as it always has) there will be short term local examples that may appear to contradict any particular view. The extent to which human activity is accelerating average temperature in Europe is I would agree, still an open question. The fact that the ice in europe has continually retreated in your lifetime, is not & is apparent to anyone who has been flying over the alps -in summer-for 40 years. It is undeniable. Let us please focus on good housekeeping. Let us all be less strident and more measured in this debate.

Iced Volvo

Let us hope that this is the beginning of the end of the scam because we do have real a real crisis coming at us. Within 100 years we will have to change from predominantly fossil fuels to predominantly renewable and we need all of our scientific resources aimed at that not "warm fuzzy feel good" media campaigns aimed at placating Green politicians. But I am not hopeful. Our civilisation may be coming to an end and just like all other civilisations in history: and similarly they built up by pragmatists and destroyed by ideologists. William Durant was correct!

George Jochnowitz

The Earth is not flat? Let us look at the Bible. "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so" (Genesis 1:7-9). The flatness of the Earth is clearly implied in these verses, which cannot otherwise be understood. Either the Earth is flat or the Bible was never meant to be taken literally.

Alcuin

I agree with Melanie on many issues, but AGW is not one. She has the bit between her teeth, but is galloping off in the wrong direction. Forget agendas guys, they are irrelevant, as are opinions - science is about evidence. Either the climate is changing or it is not, and whether people are even here to see it, let along write about it, will change nothing. So the first point is to hope for the best but prepare for the worst. That means improving coastal defences, energy security, scientific research, indigenous food production and military capability (yes, there may well be war). And we had better sort out our local social cohesion issues in case things get tough. On the science, the IPCC reports are minimum positions of a very large number of scientists, forced only to write what they can quantify, and edited by politicians of many countries. What those scientists really think is actually far more worrying. The latest evidence is the rate of glacial melting, which far exceeds all predictions, probably because water is melting, falling to the bottom and lubricating the path. Forget the odd climate maverick, writing in political journals like the Washington Times, New Statesman and WND. Look at what some of the worlds top scientists say, such as Dennis Bushnell (Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research Centre), Jim Hansen (Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies) and John Holdren (President of the AAAS). Google them, find out who they are, and what they say about AGW. And check out the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when it happened, what happened and why.

Peter

Brian,
Please DO go into the "science",the "debate" isn't over it has just begun.
Before our politicians panic into committing hundreds of billions to vast, grandiose schemes,it would be advisable to spend a some time discussing the "science".

Bogdan of Australia

Global Warming or Global Cooling; either way MARXISM must prevail. He, he, he...

Straydingo

Alcuin, I suggest you do a little more research mate as I you may find that there is a growing body of evidence challenging the IPCC to the core....those Global Warming scare Mongers that have graced this discussion seem hell bent on attacking the writer vs. the argument.

David Deming

My name is David Deming. I am the author of what is written above and falsely attributed to someone named "David Denning." This is copyrighted material, and has been reproduced here without my permission. I ask that it immediately be removed.

Frank Lee

Reid of America stole my prediction: no reputations will be affected negatively. Those who created this anti-scientific hysteria will emerge unscathed, because they are proper lefties.

George Steiner

It is much more intersting to contemplate the alternative. Which is that we are entering a period of global cooling. For much of the world to survive it, energy has to be provided at a prodigious rate. There are not many ways of doing it and wind and solar are not two of them. But building important sources of power generation takes many years some as many as a decade. In addition the companies that know how to do it are not in the hundreds. So unless we moove rapidly we may be in rather a big doodoo but a very cold doodoo.

dizzy

The real problem with this whole thing is that no one seems to understanding what "science" is. "Science" does not prove things, it hypothesizes and then seeks to falsify the hypothesis through experimentation. Because whilst hundreds of experiments may seem to prove a theory a single experiment can falsify it. The failure to get this has resulted in the subject of climate change being talked about in rather silly non-scientific terms like "consensus" and even worse phrases like "unequivocally proven". Nothing is ever proven in science.

Derek Tipp

The tide has not quite turned yet, but at least it may have slowed. There is still a huge industry out there which will cling on until hell freezes over.

ASG

Alcuin, when he states that science is about evidence and opinions are irrelevant is only partly true on the first count and entirely true on the second count. Having the evidence - e.g. knowing both that average global temperatures have increased and CO2 emissions have increased - is not complete in itself for explaining anthropogenic global warming but science requires modeling the correlation between the observed facts by using a theory for describing the interdependent behavior of these phenomena to make predictions that can be tested by experiment or observation and to date the IPCC has failed to achieve that. Leaving to one side the opinion expressed by Alcuin for explaining the mechanism for increased rate of glacial melt, it is a fact that of the estimated 160,000 glaciers only 240 are instrumented to enable scientific observation. While it’s true that in Europe many glaciers are indeed retreating those retreats commenced in the late 19th century long before industrial gas emissions had risen to high levels while other glaciers , for example the Franz Josef glacier in New Zealand , are currently advancing. The amount of ice stored on earth, both in valley glaciers and ice caps, fluctuates naturally in accord with changes in temperature and moisture supply and though at first sight the apparently widespread nature of recent valley glacier melting might seem alarming, it is consistent with the mild late 20th century warming that has occurred and there is no compelling evidence as yet that modern glacial changes fall outside the cycles of natural climate change.

wolf

Yes Melanie, we had the coldest 19th December for the past 27 years in Bradford-it must be the slowing down of the Gulfstream. If you believe statistics you'll believe the earth is flat

Jim Carr

Well done, Melanie, for the oasis of sanity you consistently provide in the desert of the AGW-myth-obsessed media. The IPCC is a political body that never gets challenged in the media. Quite the reverse in fact.

David Deming

My name is David Deming. I am the author of what is written above and falsely attributed to someone named "David Denning." This is copyrighted material, and has been reproduced here without my permission. I ask that it immediately be removed. This is my second request. My emails to Spectator editors have been ignored.

David Deming

My name is David Deming. I am the author of what is written above and was initially falsely attributed to someone named "David Denning." This is copyrighted material, and has been reproduced here without my permission. I ask that it immediately be removed. This is my third request. My emails to Spectator editors have been received, but they have not removed my work. They are using it without my permission, yet have the gall to post a notice at the bottom of this page that they own the copyright to everything here. They do not own the copyright to my work. IT WAS STOLEN FROM ME BY THE SPECTATOR.

manin

Only for your memory: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/anniversary/storm1987.html http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huracán_Katrina http://www.inm.es/web/sup/ciencia/divulga/olacalor2003/olacalor2003.html

Superscot

In reply to The Radical, I am a scientist (1st class honours, Phd in chemistry - is that enough for you?), I have written published articles on the dubiety of the greenhouse gas warming, and I give public lectures on the topic. I am not a member of the conservative party nor do I vote for them nor do I work for the oil or coal industry nor ever have and I receive no funding from them. I have been researching climate theory for ten years and I know an unsound theory when I see it. Now, respond to that.

David Michael Hirsch

Seldom mentioned is that the world will be much more lush if the climate trend since 1950 continues. In this case, by 2100, vegetation models suggest about a 40% increase in global biomass and about 80% increase in global food resources. More moisture in most places and less cold (higher winter minimums, especially in very cold places) and more fertiliser (CO2)everywhere will produce more forests and less desert. Such a world might consider the cost of adjustments to have been well worth paying, and wonder at the negativism of earlier bgenerations. The Skeptical Environmentalist examines the scientific uncertainties and the environmental 'litany' which appears to meet the spiritual needs of so many people.

Michael B

Following is the link to the 400+ scientists, all well credentialed, referred to in the U.S. Senate report (both in terms of scientific and social commentary, there are many, many highly intriguing references and quotes to be found in this still not comprehensive list): http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Kevin

The bottom line is that the hucksters have got rich off our money and now have more spending power with which to back the next scam from which they will profit at the expense of sceptics and useful idiots. The problem is not the ruling class - it is the majority voters in safe seats.

Brian O'Connor

For those who've never read it, the text of Michael Crichton's 2003 Cal Tech talk (Aliens Cause Global Warming) is worth reading.

It's not just entertaining, but enlightening. In particular, he cites several glaring examples of how scientific consensus stepped off the boat with lethal consequences, sometimes for many decades even when there was proof positive that the consensus was wrong , and he discusses a more pernicious failing of science: it's recent politization.

nick_dean

This is the link to the US Senate report and there are a dozen or so links in the report and at the foot of the page to other articles and studies, it's a great place to begin an appraisal of the AGW-skeptic's thinking: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c

Rob

So a doctor of astrophysics reckons global warming isn't happening at all, in an article with not a single piece of evidence cited to support his assertion. How convincing. Meanwhile the US Senate, far from considering the effect imaginary, consider it part of a series of natural (not man-made) cycles. I have a lot of sympathy with that view. However, when one is in a hole, one is supposed to stop digging: we may not be causing the warming, but it is surely stupid for us to go out of our way to accelerate it. Yes, it's a natural cycle. Yes, the Earth will survive perfectly well as it has before. Small consolation if there are no people left to see it. Taking action on climate change isn't about saving the planet, but about the far more personal matter of ensuring that we stay on it. Of course, there are then the economic questions of how much gain do you get per pound in terms of deferring temperature rises, and what better things you might prefer to spend the money on, such as providing access to clean drinking water. Bjorn Lomborg has made all those arguments better than I could. You might care to not, though, that Lomborg is no climate change sceptic: he believes it's happening AND that we're the main cause of it.

David

"It’s over, guys. Reason, truth and real science are fighting back." I'd have more respect for your conclusion had you shown any inclination of considering the scientific arguments on the other side. However, your approach has been to simply dismiss them based on nothing but your own beliefs (correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe you hold any form of scientific degree) and picking out those arguments that support them as and when they come along.

Jim Carr

Rob, December 27th, 2007 4:06am: "we may not be causing the warming, but it is surely stupid for us to go out of our way to accelerate it" That's just it, we cannot "go out of our way to accelerate it" or to decelerate it, if we don't cause it, now can we?

Rob

Jim Carr: "we cannot go out of our way to accelerate it or to decelerate it, if we don't cause it, now can we?" So let's see, Jim. Imagine you're lying oj the ground witn a big rock on your chest crushing you to death. I'm not the cause of the rock's being there, and if I do nothing it will kill you, but I have a choice between lifting it up a little bit to reduce the pressure on you, or piling more rocks on top (not in themselves heavy enough to kill you). Which would you prefer? Or do you consider that as I didn't put the rock there in the first place it doesn't matter if I add a few more to it?

BLOC

Rob refers to Bjorn Lomborg:

"Bjorn Lomborg has made all those arguments better than I could. You might care to not, though, that Lomborg is no climate change sceptic: he believes it's happening AND that we're the main cause of it."

Lomborg accepts the IPCC consensus at face value (I do not), but is decidedly lukewarm about its utility.

Thus, he tells us that on the basis of a cost/benefit analysis, our resources are far better used to deal with other, more pressing issues, than GW.

To me, he seems to be saying something like: "Even if we do accept that AGW is real (okay, I do), there are other areas for us to commit our limited resources to that would yield far higher returns for the pound than a near futile effort to stop whatever our contribution to AGW might be."

The 2004 Copenhagen Consensus, which formed the basis for his views on GW, and which was the basis of the book "Global Crisis, Global Solutions," listed the 17 most pressing environmental issues, and how our limited resources should be allocated.

Please note where Global Warming is located:

Very Good Projects
1. Disease - control of HIV.
2. Malnutrition - providing micronutrients
3. Subsidies and trade barriers - trade liberalization
4. Disease - control of malaria

Good Projects
5. Malnutrition - development of new agricultural technologies
6. Water and Sanitation - Small-scale water technology for livelihoods
7. Water and Sanitation - Community-managed water supply and sanitation
8. Water and Sanitation - Research on water productivity in food production
9. Governance and Corruption - Lowering the cost of starting a new business

Fair Projects
10. Migration - Lowering barriers for migration of skilled workers
11. Malnutrition - Improving infant and child nutrition
12. Malnutrition - Reducing prevalence of low birth weight
13. Disease - Scaled up basic health services

Bad Projects
14. Migration - Guest worker programs for the unskilled
15. Climate - Optimal carbon tax
16. Climate - The Kyoto Protocal
17. Climate - Value-at-risk carbon tax.

George

If this were not such a serious subject, I'd say "How hilariously quaint!". But it's nonsense, either way. Does Philips have a scientific background? No, I didn't think so. I do. Scam, eh? Intimidation, eh, what, don't you know? What nonsense. There is no intimidation, except perhaps in the other direction. As to 'scam' ... this term has the same unpleasant feel to it as reports about a global Jewish conspiracy to take over the world through an evil cabal. Of course the details will change. Of course 'global warming' may be replaced by 'climate change'. Anyone who understands the first thing about scientific modelling and hypotheses would not use this as an argument. The data take time to accumulate, and they modify the working hypothesis as they do so. The current data indicate that the frequency distribution and the intensity distribution of major storms (for the non-scientific: storms are driven to a very large extent by the heating of parts of the atmosphere) are changing measurably, and in the direction most likely to cause increasing disasters in large human settlements. The canard that it's the 'anti-globalists' and 'anti-capitalists' who 'invented' global warming is nonsense. I have been a supporter of capitalism and globalisation all my life, so have most of my friends and colleagues and family. We nevertheless think that ignoring the evidence for climate change is not clever behaviour at all.

Brian O'Connor

George wrote:

"Does Philips have a scientific background? No, I didn't think so. I do. Scam, eh? Intimidation, eh, what, don't you know? What nonsense."

I can't decide whether (Dr.?) George is more arrogant and contemptuous than dumb, or vice versa. After all, Melanie is only reporting on the opinions of -- well -- scientists who have raised legitimate questions about AGW. More and more of them are finding their voices, and the response to them seems to be ever greater shrillness.

Moreover, (Dr.?) George is appealing to authority, which leaves a particularly bad taste because the authority he's appealing to is none other than himself. It's almost as if he's proclaiming his own infallibility.

In any event, his logic is certainly flawed, unless he's willing to concede that when it comes to the Iraq war, any soldier's opinion trumps his own. Or, since he's not a priest, he can't have opinions on the morality of Catholic doctrine; etc.

Once again, for anybody who just can't believe that scientific consensus could be incorrect, if not downright misleading and destructive, I urge them to read Michael Crichton's piece entitled Aliens Cause Global Warming.

To suggest that all scientists are above perpetrating a scam, or that "scientific consensus" is necessarily meaningful, is to be woefully ignorant of the history of science and the trajectory some scientists have taken, particularly in the last 50 years. Give Crichton a chance. (My favorite line: "This is not the way science is done, it is the way products are sold.")

George

Anyone who calls me dumb and arrogant because I disagree with Saint Melanie, a hack who has nil grasp of the methodological scientific issues involved (and clearly has none himself) does not deserve a serious answer.

Jim Carr

Rob December 27th, 2007 7:01pm: "So let's see, Jim. Imagine you're lying oj the ground witn a big rock on your chest crushing you to death. I'm not the cause of the rock's being there, and if I do nothing it will kill you, but I have a choice between lifting it up a little bit to reduce the pressure on you, or piling more rocks on top (not in themselves heavy enough to kill you). Which would you prefer? Or do you consider that as I didn't put the rock there in the first place it doesn't matter if I add a few more to it?" Your analogy is bunkum. You CAN lift the rock. You CANNOT stop "climate change". As you admit yourself, we didn't cause it, so how can we "reverse" it. Or were you trying to be sly and underhand, as I suspect, and you really DO think mankind does cause "climate change", and therefore we should be able to "stop" it. "STOP CLIMATE CHANGE!" - the most risible slogan in the history of sloganeering.

Jim Carr

"Anyone who calls me dumb and arrogant because I disagree with Saint Melanie, a hack who has nil grasp of the methodological scientific issues involved (and clearly has none himself) does not deserve a serious answer." Good, because you are clearly incapable of giving one.

George

What utter nonsense, Jim. The elementary fallacies in Melanie's position, fallacies based on total ignorance about the statistical analysis of long-term trends and about the nature of scientific modelling, have been discussed here in some detail. I could elaborate, but will the ostrriches listen? What is especially hilarious is Melanie's phrase "Reason, truth and real science are fighting back". If that is not hysterical screeching, I don't know what is - and hysterically funny, too, in that she claims that thousands of serious climatologists etc are not doing real science, have lost their reason and are liars; and this, from someone sans any grasp of what science is.

Dr.Krantikumar Sharma

Global warming has been blast once for all. Now another such theory ozone layer perforation due to chloro floro carbon gases needs to be blown. In Rio summit a phased programm was given to stop production of freeaon gas but no country was serious. Now some scientists say ozone layer perforation fear too is baseless. kranti sharma

Brian O'Connor

I am much intrigued at (Dr.?) George's railing against poor Melanie, especially when he invokes his own expertise to put her down.

It's almost as if he believes ad hominem attacks and appeals to his own authority are an adequate substitute for a proper refutation of an argument. (Note to (Dr.?) George: they are not. Nor is simply asserting that somehow "statistics" prove the AGW case, or that "understanding scientific modeling" should erase the skeptics skepticism.)

It's almost as if he believes that scientific truth is subject to the democratic process! (Note to (Dr.?) George: it is not.)

It is almost as if he believes that an opinion differing from his own is by definition wrong, even if it is consistent with the opinions of highly qualified scientists spanning many disciplines, viz. geophysics, astronomy, paleontology, geology, history, etc.. (Note to (Dr.?) George: that would hint of gross egocentrism, a curious one that hints at a belief in one's infallibility of judgement.)

It is almost as if (Dr.?) George believes he's the only one on this forum who has, as he so neatly and evasively put it "scientific background," or who is the singular person who uniquely understands science as only one who practices it can. (Note to (Dr.?) George: you may not be the only one with a "scientific background" or the only one who has practiced science competitively.)

It is almost as if he believes "scientific consensus", as a concept, necessarily has any meaning whatsoever. (Note to (Dr.?) George: in and of itself, "scientific consensus" has no meaning -- "scientific consensus" has been both correct and incorrect, and there are plenty of examples of the latter, enough so that even the most enthusiastic of AGW believers should tread cautiously.)

It's almost as if (Dr.?) George believes that skepticism should be abolished from the scientific endeavor. (Note to (Dr.?) George: as one who has a "scientific background" you should know that skepticism is the engine that drives science -- and nowhere is skepticism more important than when zealots of social/political change use a challengeable "scientific consensus" to justify a massive re-allocation of limited resources, which cannot occur sans substantial costs. And if we are to abolish skepticism for one worthy cause, why not for others, and who is to decide which causes should be pursued free of skepticism?)

Of course, (Dr.?) George's real problem with Melanie is that she's terribly persuasive, and challenges his True Belief. (Note to (Dr.?) George: someone who absorbed the lessons of a "scientific background" should delight in debating these ideas, not call his opponents names and attempt to belittle their background.)

Finally, I suspect that if she were one of those who believed in AGW, (Dr.?) George wouldn't be ranting on about her lack of "scientific background" but praising her for her great insight.

Nick S

It is amazing how naive people are. It has been obvious for a long time that the case for man-made global warming is vastly exaggerated at best, and is simply being pushed by people with their own ideological and personal agendas at stake.

Will someone wake me when it's over.

Peter

"statistical analysis of long-term trends and about the nature of scientific modelling,"

I trust neither of these things,long term trends can only be measured long term.I suspect the modelers end up with bits of their airfix left over

Ilia

Many seem to think that those who propose that climate change is a real threat and that action should be taken to try to address it, are doing so for self-interested reasons. How does that work? What interest would a politician who is only interested in getting elected have, in stating that the electorate must change its ways and suffer inconvenience and economic hardship? Wouldn't his self interest be better served by saying he agreed with Melanie, voters needn't bother with all that energy efficiency and recycling crap and he was going to stop spending taxpayers' money on windfarms? What interest would a scientist only interested in making a name for herself and getting lots of research grants have, in saying that she agreed with lots of other scientists that the line favoured by some of the world's richest companies and countries, the fossil fuel producers, is wrong? Wouldn't her self interest be better served by adopting a less widely held/more controversial view more likely to be pleasing to Esso etc?

Brian O'Connor

I could speculate all day about the "whys" of why people might champion AGW. I suspect there are many reasons: some are self-serving, some do so out of genuine conviction, some champion AGW for "both-of-above."

I myself am much more interested in the "that" than the "why." So to me it's merely important "that" a great many AGW believers are impervious to evidence that calls into question their beliefs in AGW than "why."

I would reiterate, however, that Michael Crichton's article Aliens Cause Global Warming is a useful first step in understanding some less than desirable aspects of science and scientists, with some telling examples of the failure of scientific consensus.

If you want an equally good read on how people come to believe weird things, I can't recommend too strongly How to Sell a Pseudoscience by Anthony Pratkanis (it's a recipe for selling flim-flam written by a psychologist that is, like Crichton's piece, both entertaining and enlightening).

To whet your appetite, here's the Pratkanis formula:

1. Create a phantom.
2. Set a rationalization trap.
3. Manufacture Source Credibility and Sincerity
4. Establish a Granfalloon
5. Use Self-Generated Persuasion
6. Construct Vivid Appeals
7. Use Pre-Persuasion
8. Frequently Use Heuristics and Commonplaces
9. Attack Opponents Through Innuendo and Character Assassination

Pratkanis ends with a provocative question: Can science be sold by propaganda?

It's worth noting that Pratkanis wrote his article in 1995.

sotto voce

A great post

korova

Again, I fail to understand either Melanie's point of view, or the mass of others that agree with her. The main basis for the argument is that there is no such thing as 100% scientific consensus. There are always differing perspectives. What I cannot get to grips with is why Mel and her friends, loudly claim there is no evidence of man-made global warming and seem so certain. Their argument hinges on the fact that there is a lack of certainty, and yet they seem entirely convinved that there is zero chance that it is a problem created by man. A strange contradiction. If those who bang on about reason actually applied some reason to the argument they would surely take the cautious 'we may be responsible' root. If there is debate amongst the scientific community, would it not be best to err on the side of caution??? Would it not be best to put things in place that prevent the possible eventuality of a global crisis? Would it not be best to plan for a post-oil world when peak oil is just around the corner? Better to be safe than sorry is what I was always told as a boy. A few people here could do with heeding that advice. As an aside, it might interest you to know that I was once sceptical. I believed that it was part of the solar cycle. I'm as convinced as I can be that it isn't and besides, I think caution is the only sensible course to take.

Edward E Finnecy

We must hope that this article and it's source documents will be properly studied by all those in a position to influence the collected Governments of the world. I am not5 an 'expert' in anything now, but I was called one by other 'experts' in my time - when I was employed by several major international and national organisations to advise them on one field of environmental management. Then, I was a simple chemist. Sir David King would classify me as a 'denier'. Actually I accept that 'climate change' is probably going on now, as it seems to have been going on for countless millenia. Why should it stop now? It is 'anthropometric global warming' that makes me squirm with unease. Why? 1) because it seems to be a large effect to put down as the sole responsibility of changes in CO2 concentration, while discounting the possible contribution of water vapour, clouds, methane - all matters that contribute their mite to the effect. Clouds in particular have an easily experienced effect on atmospheric temperatures beneath them - sit on an English beach to experience the effect of clouds. 2) I have no idea what an average atmospgheric temperature means in quantitative terms. Where is this temperature to be found? Will it last for a day , a week, or a century, or is it a transitory state? Can't we be shown some isotherms covering the whole earth? Or will all areas of the earth experience the same rise in warmth? 3) There must be many millions of individual measurements of atmospheric temperature. How much of this data has been verified as being of a suitable quality? How was it treated to eliminate unsatisfactory numbers? What were the criteria for eliminating some of the available data? In fact, exactly how was the raw data massaged before it was submitted to the data set offered to the model? 4) How many of those who read the output of the model understood the science and the mathematics being used? I am unhappy about the transfer of science to a sub set of the God of mathematics. Maths is a marvellous, but human construct. It is not a science, but a tool used by scientists. I particularly distrust regression analysis - of the type used to enable nicely smoothed data to be presented in IPCC summary reports. I have used much simpler regression analysis, in much simpler circumstances, and I am fully aware that one of their more nefarious uses is to 'improve' the apparent quality of poor quality data. This ruse can seem to be successful if no mention of the variance of the data is made alongside the neatly smoothed graph. 5) The last point wish to raise is less about science and more about politics. I am very wary of any crusade that has such intensive support from the major environmental pressure groups since they do not,in my opinion,have a good record in their support for humanity. neither do they ring many bells as looking for solutions in any of the campaigns they have mounted. They would say that that is not their job; they see themselves as 'agenda setters' rather than solvers of the problems they have raised, but they are assiduous in showing the deficiencies, as perceived by them, of any solution that others may light upon. They have no concern for people, only 'the environment' interests them and humans are not accepted as a part of that. They are equally forgetful of their catastrophys, witness their failure to show remorse for their 'triumph ' in having DDT banned while millions of people in the malarial zones die each year when the use of DDT was almost successful in eliminating this disease. Now DDT did have its problems, mainly that it was somewhat too broad in the things it killed, but that could have been dealt with by more careful use, and a reduction in the use of aerial spraying. It is not only their attitude to DDT that has been baleful, but they have gone on to create international paranoia not only about pesticide use, but about 'hazardous substances' in general, and about nuclear power. It i8s interesting that their campaign against nuclear power had rather gone onto the back boiler after Chernobyl did not seem to have produce the mountains of corpses that they had predicted after the event, only to jump up again fully armed when nuclear power was seen as the only proven technology that could make a certain significant reduction in CO2 emissions from electricity production, the largest source of 'anthropomorphic global warming', And that could be seen as a solution to their problem. Predictably the banners are out and the slogans of half-truth and lies are being prepared , so that craven Governments talk about colossal wind farms to be constructed off-shore at colossal cost but of uncertain performance and effective life in those challenging circumstances. What are the expected maintenance costs? What is the expected yield - quite a different thing from the installed potential output. So, I am not a friend of organisations such as the soi-disant Friends of the Earth or the egregious Greenpeace, and it is largely their doing that we are saddled with the 'Precautionary Principle' which is interpreted as meaning that no 'risk' that can be deduced by what ever means can be accepted, and the hypothesis that their is no threshold at which a poisonous material or emanation can be said to be safe. Apart from being an unprovable statement, the probability is that it is extremely unlikely to be proved to be true. Between them these too notions have caused more paranoia than almost anything else - and are without substance. They have also produced more useless, because unenforceable, law than anything else. I think I must stop at this point, and lie down in a darkened room.

Korova

What I cannot get to grips with is why Mel and her friends, loudly claim there is no evidence of man-made global warming and seem so certain.

I'm as convinced as I can be that it isn't and besides, I think caution is the only sensible course to take. This reasoning assumes as true the very issues of cause and effect and cost/benefit that are the subject of the debate. As such, it is unacceptable. It's interesting that you once were skeptical of AGW and now believe in it. I once believed in it, and am now highly skeptical of it.

Xisithrus

First off, the Bible never stated the earth was flat. Isaiah 40:22 refers to "the circle of the earth,"... The Hebrew is Khug = sphericity or roundness. Secondly the Bible contains quite a bit of astrology and they knew of the precession of the earth which is about a 26,000 years cycle which may be the cause of the melting, or the heating of the atmosphere. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The dramatic loss of the Arctic ice cap may have been triggered by disruption to the thermal layers of atmosphere stacked over Earth's far north, according to Swedish research to be published Thursday. The study, published in Nature, offers a new explanation for the rise in the Arctic's surface temperature, which over the past century has been nearly two degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit), or twice the global average.

Brian O'Connor

(With apologies to everyone, my first effort at posting this failed, and the second effort led to it being incorrectly attributed to korva rather than me, with major formatting problems. I'm trying again. I hope the webmaster removes the faulty post.)

korova wrote:

What I cannot get to grips with is why Mel and her friends, loudly claim there is no evidence of man-made global warming and seem so certain.

If I am included in the category of one of Mel's "friends," I take strong issue with the assertion that I've claimed there is no evidence of man-made GW.

One can always find evidence pro an hypothesis. The issue is how much evidence there is that might tend to falsify it. Correlation and causation are two different beasts.

I think a stronger case can be made that GW is occuring than that it is man-made (warming is happening throughout the solar system), but the idea that humans are causing it here on Mother Earth seems a real stretch. Feel free to disagree.

Speaking only for myself, I can assure you that I am not certain that either Melanie is, or I am, correct. I am skeptical of the certainty of those who believe and will truck no skepticism, especially when it is scientists who are certain. They seem to forget that the burden of proof lies on them to provide enough unambiguous evidence to make their case, not on us skeptics to disprove their challengeable hypothesis.

I've been fooled before by claims that "The World is Doomed." I believed Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb. I believed in nuclear winter. I believed that DDT was evil incarnate, and the world would benefit from abolishing it.

I was fooled each time, having reacted more to my emotions than to a dispassionate examination of facts, contra-facts and opposing arguments. I don't like being suckered and seeing myself as a gullible idiot, so I've raised my standard of proof. (Fool me once, bad on you. Fool me 8 times, bad on me. [I'm not the brightest of bulbs . . .])

If there is debate amongst the scientific community, would it not be best to err on the side of caution???

It depends on a cold hard look at cost/benefits. Before we commit huge resources to fight GW, we simply must get a handle on: i) the extent to which any warming benefits the world (e.g. increased agricultural land, lengthened growing seasons, decreased heating fuel) vs harms it (so . . . how much will there be, over what time frame and how do we know?); ii) whether or not humans even can moderate it's influences, and if so, by how much (what is Earth's optimal temperature?); iii) the costs to worthy causes of diverting to combat GW whatever resources would be required to do so (think the DDT ban, which some believe costs 2.7 million lives per year [would you be more if the number were only 1 million?].

In short, do we really know what the prognosis is for this particular GW disease, if it is a disease at all? Is the cure worse than the disease? (Bjorn Lomborg evidently believes in AGW, but thinks it's a bad investment to divert limited resources to combat it. See the conclusions of his 2004 Copenhagen Conference, which formed the basis for his book "Global Crises, Global Solutions.")

I'm as convinced as I can be that it isn't and besides, I think caution is the only sensible course to take.

This reasoning assumes as true the very issues of cause and effect and cost/benefit that are the subject of the debate. As such, it is unacceptable.

It's interesting that you once were skeptical of AGW and now believe in it. I once believed in it, and am now highly skeptical of it.

Jack Davis

Great column. Rare to see this in the American press, where hysteria reigns. (Even though today it was reported that the storms in the Northern U.S. are the worst in many years, it hasn't sunk in to the media elites). Climate scientist Tim Ball has said, and I think he's right, that the world will be cooler by 2030 due to an emerging solar cycle. Of course, he's been slandered and accused of being in bed with the oil companies. For some excellent articles on g.w., see Alexander Cockburn at www.counterpunch.org.

Peter Darley

Could someone give a good reason why humanity should survive?

harry

Please, if you are looking to read about scientific issues, read articles that quote PEER REVIEWED scientific journals, that use mathematical/scientific rigour to produce theories, and are not based on opinions, which, as some know better that others can be heavily influenced (££££ ey Melanie). Melanie you have every right to criticise but please, before criticising read about the rigour that goes into scienitific studies, the standards and statistical tests that have been developed over the past century to reduce bias and error as best possible. Personal and political opinon bears no comparison, if you are looking to report something in a factual and unbias way. However I don't feel you are looking to do this, maybe just to tell people what they want to hear. For that, as a journalist and as an adult you should be ashamed.

Dave S.

"fallacies based on total ignorance about the statistical analysis of long-term trends and about the nature of scientific modelling"

Would these be the same models that, when input with past data to "predict" past conditions, fail to give the correct results? Models that presume to accurately take into account the immense variety of the biosphere?

Some other points:

- Hurricane Katrina was blamed on AGW. We were told to expect bigger and more frequent hurricanes. What happened?

- When scientists come out against AGW, their credentials are attacked. Yet the most influential peddlar of AGW is a failed divinity student. Surely an astrophysicist skeptical of AGW based on observations of Martian warming is more credible than a Tennessee politician?

- When scientists come out against AGW, they are said to be in the employ of "right-wing" organizations or "big oil". Yet AGW proponents are never questioned for being in the employ of left-wing organizations or anti-corporate, anti-industry environmental groups.

- "It wouldn't hurt to do/give up something, even if the theory is wrong, just to be on the safe side" is absurd reasoning. Given that all past apocalyptic scenarios have proven false, every penny spent on them would have been wasted. That is a net loss for nothing.

- We were invited to Google James Hansen of NASA. No need. He's the fellow who offered up evidence of yearly record high temperatures for the first decade of the 21st century, only to have an amatuer point out that his computer program (there go those infallible models again) contained a Y2K anomoly that falsely exaggerated the temperatures. NASA acknowledged the error. Hansen, if I am not mistaken, has not yet offered up anything more honest or graceful than, "But still..."

- NOAA temperature monitoring stations were found by other amatuer bloggers to be situated over parking lots and near air-conditioning exhaust ducts. When their findings were posted, NOAA removed the location information from their site for "security reasons".

- I graphed the record high and low temperatures for my area for the past 100 years. It showed record highs before the forties and after the seventies, consistent with cyclical expectations. We are entering a low temp cycle, which will be miserable (and was miserable enough from the forties to the seventies to prompt Newsweek, among others, to issue a jeremiad about man-made global cooling. Plus ca change...) If you live in an area that hasn't become excessively paved-over in 100 years, I invite you to do the same (you can find the data at weather.com). It's a lot of work (732 data points), but it's nice for showing lazy AGW parroters and listening to them try to discredit it somehow.

I invite AGW proponents to reply with facts and reason.

Dave S.

"Could someone give a good reason why humanity should survive?"

Bach. Twain. Shakespeare. A baby's laugh. That part on a woman where the cheek meets the thigh. The moon landing. That first kiss. A soldier who dives on a grenade to save his buddies. The Taj Mahal. Brown-eyed brunettes...

Should I go on, or are you going to lighten up?

b

global warming is a natural process where by 6 main gases, (with 3 or more atoms)can retain longwave radiation reflected by the earth, (orginally shortwave radiation from the sun). As these gases in the troposphere retain radiation, our average surface temperature is 14.4 C, when with out the global warming mechanism it should be -18C. Making the planet more habitable!! But consider, that before the industrial revolution atmospheric levels od co2, a green house gas, were at 280ppm, however today they are are 380ppm. Hence it is a matter of physics that we are intensifying the global warming effect, which, will have different effects global with regard to heating and cooling, as the climate is a very complex system. However the main point is this is a case of physics - if we significantly to gases which keep our planet warmer for us - there will be an effect!! People have motivations for dening climate change. And people have motivations for promting their views on the existance of climate change. But in univeristies and colleges in the UK, on BSc BA degress and on alevels, climate change is taught as factual - the existance of which is factual, and it is almost certainly cause and intensified by emissions caused by humans. This is why i m surprised to hear people still claim it s a conspiracy!! When there was never during my science education that climate change wasn t happening or intensified/likely caused by humans. If you want a better understanding read the stern review on the economics of climate change, or the rough guide to climate change. Harry bsc london

Russell Seitz

Brian Connor commends " Michael Crichton's article Aliens Cause Global Warming is a useful first step in understanding some less than desirable aspects of science and scientists, with some telling examples of the failure of scientific consensus." I must heartily agree , as it quarries my earlier writing on the polemic abuse of climate models in The Wall Street Journal. But in case readers, and Melanie Phillips have not noticed , Crichton, sensible fellow that he is, has allowed his mind tobe changed by the evidence ,and while remaining a hammer to hype, has recused himself from those idiotarians who have not allowed the evolution of the science to change their views. La Phillips is alas, a very extreme outlier of those whose writing reveals a preference for leisured ignorance over diligent reading of one thing London does not lack- science journals. Read 'em and weep- seeing the editors here persevere in making fools of themselves isvery much a laughing matter.

Lauren

Dave S. I was thinking the same thing about tragic man without any life meaning (and without any cause to justify my life and your life). He needs to read some Ayn Rand or something. Personally I tend to choose life over death, and the whole of western civilization and my aeons of ancestors before me is a mountain moving motivator in itself. Tragic man need only examine the awe-inspiring feats of those throughout history to realize it's nothing short of a miracle to be instilled with the luxury of life, even though it oftentimes sucks. Our grandparents had that realization and they just sucked it up and forged ahead.

Peter

"Would it not be best to put things in place that prevent the possible eventuality of a global crisis?"

This is the crux of the matter,the enormous cost of the proposed schemes and the actual effect of measures taken to reduce carbon emissions will be felt in the immediate future with great social consequences.
Nobody knows if these schemes will have any effect on the climate whatsoever.
Might be a good idea to see if "science" has got it right before letting loose the politicians.

Brian O'Connor

Russell Seitz writes:

But in case readers, and Melanie Phillips have not noticed , Crichton, sensible fellow that he is, has allowed his mind tobe changed by the evidence ,and while remaining a hammer to hype, has recused himself from those idiotarians who have not allowed the evolution of the science to change their views.

Could you please provide a reference for your assertion that Crichton has changed his mind about GW?

As late as March, 2007, Mr. Crichton appeared on Intelligence Squared to debate the proposition: "Global Warming Is Not a Crisis".

Mr. Crichton, Richard Lintzen and Phillip Stott spoke in favor of the resolution.

It seems they were persuasive:

In a vote before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion, while 57 percent were against and 13 percent undecided. The debate seemed to affect a number of people: Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion, roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided.